Man shot in face at Palm Coast party

The Flagler County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting on Pine Hill Lane in Palm Coast that left one man injured with a gunshot wound to the face.

Deputies responded to a call about 3 a.m. Sunday after receiving multiple calls of shots being fired in the Pine Hill Lane neighborhood, according to Lt. Bob Weber, public information officer.

Authorities said a birthday party with up to 100 people in attendance was being held at 25A Pine Hill Lane when several gunshots were heard outside. A 19-year-old man, identified as Johnnie Thomas Jr. of Bunnell, was shot in the face. Thomas was taken by private vehicle to a hospital where he was treated and released.

Investigators have interviewed a number of witnesses who were at the party but are hoping for more. Anyone with information that may assist investigators can contact detective Annie Conrad at (386) 586-4844 or Crime Stoppers at (888) 277-8477.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"Trying to declare me unqualified to discuss the issue is absurd – an attempt to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the message. It is a typical right wing tactic."

You have continually demonstrated such, and since when have I been a right winger ?

" Nobody, including me, is suggesting firearm ownership be banned. We have a constitutional right to own appropriate firearms."

Diane Feinstein is, Andrew Cuomo is, Mayor Bloomberg is.

"Appropriate Firearms" ?? Explain your definition of that !!

Any Firearm that can be used for a criminal purpose can be used for a legitimate purpose !!

Gun control activists pretend that there are such things as "illegitimate" and "legitimate" guns, then claim to be "reasonable" in wanting to outlaw only the former group--those that they, the national media and cynical politicians demonize as "assault weapons," "Saturday Night Specials" or "junk guns."
The pretense has an obvious flaw: Any firearm, regardless of type, size, caliber, cost or appearance, can be, and is most often by far, used for legitimate purposes. Despite the powerful images cast by nightly news broadcasts and violence-oriented TV programs, guns of all sorts are put to good use far more often by the tens of millions of upstanding gun owners than they are misused by evil or irresponsible people. And despite protestations to the contrary by anti-gun groups, there is no gun or type of gun that criminals generally prefer.
One long-time gun control supporter, criminologist Philip Cook, has rejected the "illegitimate" gun theory. "Indeed, it seems doubtful that there are any guns that are 'useless' to legitimate owners, yet useful to criminals," Cook wrote. "Any gun that can be used in self-defense has a legitimate purpose, and therefore is not 'useless.' Similarly, any gun that can be used in crime can also be used in self-defense.

" Trying to declare me unqualified to discuss the issue is absurd – an attempt to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the message. It is a typical right wing tactic."

Sadly, you very much *are* unqualified. You know literally nothing about the topic you're talking about, to the point that you're fabricating your own imaginary shorthand for things that aren't even real. If I claimed one of the gravest ills in society was fenzagoolers, one would presume that fenzagoolers were an actual thing, I could articulate just what it is they are and what they do that distinguishes them as being particular from other, similar things. In your case, when you start prattling misguided buzz like "high caliber ammunition", you come off looking like a clueless clown who's just making s**t up for the sake of hearing yourself speak. Is your position so inherently fragile that you must resort to creating fictitious boogeyman and bleating that they're coming to steal away the children? It seems to be the case.

Nobody's trying to say you're unqualified to hold an ideological opinion opposing gun rights. It's when you try to delve into the part of the discussion that does require actual knowledge- while possessing no actual knowledge- that you appear clown-like.

Contrary to the current narrative, your right to a broad-based opinion doesn't qualify you to jump neck deep into the specifics of the matter. We're entitled to an opinion about the Iraq war, that gives us no footing to voice an opinion about what roads the convoys should be driving on, irrespective of the fact that we don't believe they should even be there in the first place.

Also, LOL at "right wing tactic". You may know you're doing life right by this, one sign: when left wingers think you're right wing and right wingers think you're a liberal, you're nearer to the truth than any of them.

The point is there is no such thing as a "rapid fire clip". There are 30 round magazines or less. None of which are any more capabale of firing rounds any faster than as fast as the person can squeeze the trigger. Unless tampered with, all rifles and handguns are semi-automatic...meaning that you have to squeeze-release-squeeze inorder to fire a second round. You simply just can't hold the trigger down. So when you (& other folks wanting to restrict guns) use flashy and zinger words like "Semi-auto", "rapid fire clips", etc.... you're only doing an injustice to the other gun-ignorant folks who are unfortunately listening to you and the others.

Therefore, if you know about guns, stop using the flashy words that are intended to only stir up negative connotations of weapons that only suit your agenda of further restricting gun ownership.

I haven't made any "silly" 2nd Amendment arguments. The fact is, regardless of how many new and restricting gun laws we make, crazy people will still find a way to commit mass killings because they are crazy...and you CANNOT fix crazy. So allow law abiding citizens to continue on with their guns should they so choose and allowing them to protect themselves, loved ones and property.

Are practically verbatim every time they post on this subject. Both violate their own liberal principle's by calling knowledgeable firearms owners "gun nuts" and a variety of other names. AJ is so far off in space about the issue all he can do is conjure up some crackerized version of music to make an attempt at justifying Kellermans bogus 43 times argument. Meanwhile Lonnya spews the same verbatim, Rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, tanks, and artillery routine, that nobody is even owning or asking to.
To listen to Lonnya one would think that a 55 grain .22 slug is capable of penetrating through an assortment of funiture and walls unimpeded. The idea that a nieghbor might be injured from you defending yourself is so laughably remote that its absurd to try and perpetuate it. Further VMax and TAP ammo minimize this possibilty to almost nothing.